My sociology antennas perked up when I read this article. I remember something about Marx predicting that in countries like America, the middle class would assist the proletariat in overthrowing the government by providing the financial, educational, and leadership capital to do so.
While I don't think we can expect a bloody communist overthrow, I wonder if the declining condition of the middle class will lead to a bloodless democratic socialist overthrow. When middle class people are living homeless in their cars .... when the middle class takes all their retirement savings to pay their kids way through college .... when the middle class is bankrupted by medical bills....
I totally ignored the Marx reference - in my view the middle class is the proletariat these days... I'm not sure Professor Marx could have envisioned a class of people that weren't either desperately rich or desperately poor.
Ha - there is no shame in having conservative leanings. Or liberal leanings for that matter.
Anytime money and schools get combined in a sentence, tangentially or not, I pretty much freak out.
My posts relating to social issues are usually a bit provocative but its intentional... I like it when a good discussion gets stimulated, even if its a result of disagreeing with something somebody said. So in other words, don't feel too bad :)
This thread makes me laugh because I was being mostly silly and a little serious when I wrote it, but it generated a lot of interesting discussion that could probably keep going on and on and on and on.....
It makes me laugh too because I come off as some raging socialist when I'm horribly conservative in other ways. I'm pretty sure I'd be slammed on my conservatism too! lol.
Jason: "To me, scapegoating developers for this is not the right way to go"
I didn't scapegoat developers. I blamed the cities who need to do a better job deciding who gets to build where. Just today, at zoning board, I learned that a contracting company is building 2 bedroom apartments on Lafayette on the west side that will go for far more than what a west side individual/family can probably afford. City will probably approve it seems like.
"Perhaps the government could incentivize instead of attempt to punish."
Agreed. I never suggested the government should punish.
Joshua: "the problem with public schools is not the funding!"
I never said the problem with my friend's school is funding. I can tell you the problem. Some other day maybe.
"Our social safety net will always be somewhere in the middle. Democrats will always be looking to expand it, and Republicans will always be scrutinizing it for fraud, frivolity and waste."
I would agree. That's why in a previous post I said that there will probably never be a socialist revolution. The government will always step in just enough to make sure things don't fall apart completely. And for the record, lots of social workers are Democrats and we are an angry bunch when it comes to fraud, frivolity and waste too.
"I'm going to skip the theologic aspect of the argument as I'm not going to ponder scripture too much with a preacher and his wife!"
Feel free to argue theology with me. I'm not the one with a seminary degree!
Whether or not something was law, to me, is not really the point. Clearly the theme that gets repeated over and over focuses on personal sacrifice, and in practice this is what most devout people I've met focus on as well, including you guys who travel all over and do charitable activities.
If you want to call the interest deduction a subsidy, you would be correct, and I think that's what you probably meant instead of handout, which to me implies that you're getting something from someone else for free. This is probably one of those times when fairness isn't as much of a consideration because our government desires to promote home ownership. Social engineering is a hallmark of government activity.
I think that it is fine for a government to make the rules and set conditions under which a market may operate. That is what governments do. They would be doing the appropriate thing by taking accountability for the things they have control over. They can say, well, you can only build this type of housing here or there if they want to avoid taking on those kinds of projects, or lack the funding.
To me, scapegoating developers for this is not the right way to go because nobody honestly expects them to do the right thing and pass on better opportunities "just because". They are going to take on projects, and the associated risks and financial obligations, if it makes sense for them to do so. Nobody is really in a position to demand it from them, or force them to build anything. Perhaps the government could incentivize instead of attempt to punish.
RE: everything thats been said here -
I'm going to skip the theologic aspect of the argument as I'm not going to ponder scripture too much with a preacher and his wife! Thats like a car noob like me getting into a technical discussion with a mechanic. In general though, I think its clear that alms for the poor shouldn't ever be out of fashion if you call yourself a Christian. How broad our government administered social safety net should be is a different story.
(e:jon) made interesting and salient points about self-reliance. Our government and economy will never be entirely based on cutthroat Darwin-esque capitalism, but I have to admit, I don't have sympathy for those Californians whose million-dollar homes are being repossessed. Our social safety net will always be somewhere in the middle. Democrats will always be looking to expand it, and Republicans will always be scrutinizing it for fraud, frivolity and waste.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the problem with public schools is not the funding! For a system with 2.5 times the budget as the City itself, our schools here have been administered and cared for in a most disgraceful fashion for decades. Schools, public safety and infrastructure are not handouts in my estimation... I think thats fairly obvious!
"Every one of those scriptures asks for or commands personal action."
Jason: The OT scripture does more than command personal action, I think. The scriptures I cited were the law of the land as revealed by the prophets. You had to give tithes (aka taxes) and those tihes were redistributed to people in need. Not optional.
I absolutely think it's a subsidy Jason when people get to deduct mortgage interest. If it weren't for having the house, you would have to pay more taxes. What about owning a house qualifies you to pay less money in taxes than the guy who pays rent?
Jon: It's interesting that you quoted scripture from Psalm and Proverbs. Those chapters are good thoughts, ideas, sentiments composed by David with a lot of truth, but Psalms and Provers were never the law of the land like the OT scripture I quoted.
It's terrific that you volunteer with organizations. I definitely have a less impressive volunteer record. One of the reasons I don't volunteer that much is that I have mixed feelings about it. So much volunteer work is to put band aids on the problems that are often caused by bad government policy. People make bad decisions due to lack of education... well what does that say then about the public education system, ya know?
I volunteer with a young Sudanese girl to help her with her homework. She goes to a school for individuals who don't speak english as a foreign language. Her school is such a fricking mess that she needs substantial help outside of school. I love tutoring her, but it pisses me off that the need to tutor her even exists.
As for the lady in the article, I don't think she's entirely blameless but I do think it's a problem when cities don't plan for mixed level income housing. And I don't mean SUBSIDIZED housing. I mean, vetting the contractors coming in who build apartments, homes and condos to make sure there's a mix of rental prices and housing prices in the market. It's a concept that a lot of activists are pushing in a number of counties. And a lot of middle class/working class people support it.
People do have personal responsibility for choices, but choices and options are limited by environment of their neighborhoods, communities, counties, states, etc.... Let's have government policies in place that don't force people into corners, making bad decisions, etc...
I totally agree that the Bible is pretty clear on helping out the poor. There is a lot of good material there that you listed. Probably enough to fill volumes of books related to just those few links.
As an individual, I'm not without compassion for the poor. I think housing, education, and true HONEST use of the welfare programs available are all good initiatives/programs which were established/funded by the government. And there are probably well over a dozen programs I'm not aware of.
I know I'm just a dude responding to your post, so I feel compelled to mention that as an individual I've done quite a bit of local and semi-global volunteer work just to help those labeled "poor". I've helped at the local soup kitchen, I've volunteered for :::link::: And on a larger scale I've worked as a volunteer in a couple building programs for low income people in Grenada and Trinidad. I spent months during my early college summers with a pitchfork and shovel in my hand literally (and spending weekends/nights on the beach, woo hoo, there were defiantly perks).
Over and over I've talked with individuals who find themselves in situations generally due to poor planning brought mainly upon a lack of general education. And sometimes even a lack of common sense, ha. Also, it is very apparent that not all individuals have the same opportunities.
Anyways, I just don't like blaming government for an individual's decisions which lead to their condition. My first instinct is that the individual has to take some percentage of responsibility and act accordingly.
As for the lady in the original article. I hardly think she is blameless for her predicament.
And here are some passages of scripture related to financial decisions. Again, not arguing... just thinking about how middle class Americans can become working class Americans.
"The wicked borrows and does not pay back, but the righteous is gracious and gives" (Psalm 37:21)
"Let the creditor seize all that he [the wicked] has; and let strangers plunder the product of his hand" (Psalm 109:11)
"The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower becomes the lender’s slave"(Proverbs 22:7)
"Any enterprise is built by wise planning, becomes strong through common sense, and profits wonderfully by keeping abreast of the facts" (Proverbs 24:3-4, TLB)
"The wise man saves for the future, but the foolish man spends whatever he gets" (Proverbs 21:20, LB)
"The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor, the wicked does not understand such concern" (Proverbs 29:7)
I guess I don't really consider the government giving you more of your money back a handout. You earned it, not them.
And I agree that an appropriate government role is to make the rules, and to make them as equitable to everyone as possible. The media should also not tell half-truths in their reports when they make it personal.
If anyone is to be put to blame here, it is obviously the government that had a serious lack of foresight given what's happened in California, not to mention her family. It is astonishing that they wouldn't help her.
I agree that we have a responsibility to take care of our elders. Subsidized housing should be built anyway, but that doesn't have an immediate effect. California is in a very difficult position because of its debt load, and so their options may be limited.
The scriptures are very helpful, because a pet peeve of mine is when someone conflates advocacy of government redistribution with real compassion. People (not you guys, but far too many to tolerate) think they're real humanitarians when they pass the problem off to someone else through tax policy.
Every one of those scriptures asks for or commands personal action. The question everyone should be asking themselves is: When does something like this become MY problem, and not someone else's problem? I admit I fail at this constantly. The ones who have been reading the scriptures closely are the ones setting up the lots for these women.
So when you guys say people don't want hand outs ... do you mean hand outs like public school and income tax deductibles for mortgage interest payments ;) Because, I'll admit, I like those handouts.
Or you don't want government interference in the housing market like the ending of red line practices or home sale clauses preventing the sale of homes to Jewish or African American individuals ;)
Here's some additional thoughts on handouts from the bible... not to make an argument necesarily, but just to add something interesting to the conversation. Old Testament scriptures over and over again command those with means to provide for the poor, the aliens, the widowless, the fatherless with no conditions. The scriptures are short, just a sentence or two. Hopefully the links post ok:
:::link:::
:::link:::
:::link:::
:::link:::
:::link:::
:::link:::
:::link:::
random unrelated comment.
I love that "working class" more or less means "poor" these days. And what, then, is middle class? they don't work?
silly nomenclature.
I haven't read the article and am going to stay out of the politics side, but I have a feeling I'd agree with josh/jason/jon.
the lady in that article didn't plan to fail, she just failed to plan
I couldn't agree more with Jason and Joshua. You both nailed it. Or at least I generally share your viewpoint on this.
And I don't agree that the woman in the article was able to afford her rent pre lay off, which was 3/4 of her total income. That is insane. If that happens, it is obviously time to move.
As for doing things "the societally approved way", you forgot two things in your short list: stay out of consumer debt, and don't believe everything you hear/see/read/etc. (Hmm, second thought, I guess both of which aren't endorsed by society in general.)
As for turning to big government to help me out, no thanks. I'd rather not have handouts in general, or have the government rezone my community potentially interfering with the local housing market. I want to maintain/grow my equity in my home.
Janelle, In general that was a good article. Thanks for sharing the link. It made me think. Though I don't necessarily agree with everyone's opinions. But it is interesting to hear other people's viewpoints. Thanks!
Joshua, I think it would be a slim chance of a socialist overthrow too. Sociologists have argued that the United States government usually steps in with policies to hold up the middle class when they're experiencing a crisis (ala the mortgage bailout working its way through the process).
I think that there is a slim chance that the country reaches a tipping point spilling the middle class into finanical insecurity that could result in some significant change. With some googling after reading that article, I was surprised to learn of the increase of homeless on the street who were formerly middle class.
It's gotta make you think when the people who have done things the societally approved way (i.e. college education, work hard, save money, etc...) are facing homelessness.
Jason, in the article, the woman explains that she was making more before being laid off. She had a middle class existence and was able to afford her mortgage. After she was laid off, the next stumbling block became the sky-high rents and mortgages.
Whereas the solution might not be a "handout", it could be cities working harder to ensure multi-income housing in their areas through planning boards/zoning boards. A bit socialist without giving a hand out.
Joshua: I cringed a little when I wrote that comment because I knew already how you would respond so I should have phrased it better to begin with. Yes, plenty of people aren't looking for a handout. But it ignores the many ways in which the government already provides for us. People forget that when they thump on their chests and say, I provide for myself and my family as I pull us up to the next socioeconomic ladder. That attitude is used by politicians to manipulate them into voting against their interest.
Voting against their own interests doesn't mean voting against handouts...it means voting for/supporting politicians that would put policies in place that hurt your interests.
RE: voting against their own interests - the bottom line is that some people aren't looking for handouts. I'm certainly not. All that may certainly change, but I seriously, seriously doubt any socialist revolution will happen in America.
At $8 an hour part time, plus some SSI pittance, you aren't middle class, not in Buffalo and especially not in California. At that point you are the working poor.
The article identified a major stumbling block for her and others in the same situation - the rents and mortgages in California are sky high, and there is little alternative housing.
The question then becomes, what is the solution? Is it socialist robin-hoodism that will allow this woman to keep her condo? Or is the answer simply more government housing that is "reasonably" close enough to her? To what standard of living is someone entitled? You don't need to be a cruel, uncaring right winger to ask these questions. It might be uncomfortable, but these things have to be flushed out.
I think it tends to be the working class who are manipulated to vote against their own interests more so than the middle class. The working class has some chance or hope of moving up and have a better understanding of being in an insecure position in life.
The middle class is seeing for the first time since the Great Depression just how easy it is to fall. And they don't wanna fall.
Hmmm. I doubt it. It's a amazing how effective calling national health care "socialized medicine" shuts down discussion.
It blows my mind how people can be manipulated to vote against their own interests.